My Muslim friends, I don't tolerate them, I love them.
My Muslim acquaintances, I don't tolerate them, I like them.
Muslims I don't know, I don't tolerate them, I am indifferent to them or rather I care about them as a fellow human being, as much as anyone else.
None of the groups above I tolerate, because there is nothing to dislike about them to be tolerant of. David Cameron is often heard saying what a tolerant nation we are when talking about the Muslim communities. Using the word tolerant implies there is something fundamentally unpleasant about whichever group you are talking about, I take serious issue with this. I'm not a fan of DC but I honestly don't believe that implication is his intention but because of his choice of words the implication is there.
Another word I dislike the use of is 'moderate' as in moderate Muslim. imo we don't have moderate Muslims and extremist Muslims, we have Muslims and extremist Muslims. The only group outside the norm and therefore needing the qualifier is the extremist. Using the word moderate seems to tell us "it's ok, these ones are nice" we don't need it, the fact is most are nice and so that should be the assumption. No other group that I can think of has this qualifier on it, we don't say 'moderate Christians' to distinguish them from the ones that blow up abortion clinics. The assumption (rightly so) is that Christians aren't extremists, the same should be true of Muslims so no need to spell it out by attaching the word 'moderate' just so we can be sure.
imo language is a very powerful tool and can shape our thinking. I accept that words do change their meaning overtime though so perhaps the word 'tolerant' for most people no longer means to put up with something you don't really like and means something else now. I still take the not really liking something meaning though, that's why I don't like it.
FGM, I don't claim to be an expert and only know what I've heard on the news over the years. I did write and deliver an extended essay on it about 25 years ago as a student though, it was called 'female circumcision' back then. imo FGM is a much more accurate term and conveys the horror of what this is much better (see point about language above). When I presented this essay about half the class had never even heard of it and once everybody did know about it, about half the class didn't think it was important as it didn't affect them anyway so it's not our business. One person was particularly vocal that the rest of society should just keep it's nose out, even quoting Maya Angelou (I think) who had a similar stance on this.
I think the UK has done a very poor job protecting children from FGM and seeking justice for them after the event. I think in all the time it has been illegal, much of that time has been characterised by a distinct lack of interest. Now I may be wrong, it may be true that every single child over the last thirty years thought to be at risk of this form of abuse has had stringent child protection measures put in place to protect them. And that every suspected case has been reported to the police by professionals or members of the public and the police have vigorously investigated every single one. I don't believe this is the case though. If I'm right then that raises the much bigger and more troubling question of 'why not' why haven't we protected these children.
I know FGM is a complicated issue, and within a family it's a one-off (but extremely serious with life long consequences) episode of abuse within an otherwise normal home life for a child. I can't help thinking that societies response would be a lot stronger if it were the sexual organs of boys being mutilated to the point that they could never enjoy sex though.
Fully expecting certain posters to come along calling me an islamophobic cunt for my views on the use of language and FGM and telling me to fake off and then fake of some more. Oh and that actually the UK is doing a fantastic job protecting children from FGM and couldn't do more.